" According to Burkhard Heim this can only be achieved by introducing the life-process as an irreducible reality into the description. Only the life-process unites all these polarities.Heim shows that four-dimensional space-time is a subspace of a six-dimensional hyperspace, which in turn has a twelve-dimensional hyperspace. By deriving a law of dimensions he demonstrates that only this combination of four, six and twelve dimensions fullfills all the requirements of a unification of quantumphysics and gravity. He demonstrates that the six-dimensional space is composed of two-dimensional metrons which are of the dimension of the square of Plancks lengths. These metrons are the quantums of space. An undisturbed lattice of these metrons is equivalent to empty three-dimensional space, whereas certain deformations of this lattice can be interpreted as physical structures. Of the twelve dimensions only three are real (our common space), and nine are imaginary. Dimension 5 and 6 are organizational coordinates which measure the degree of complexity and teleological value of the related phyical structures. The fifths and sixths dimension can only influence physical space through time. These interactions appear as changes of quantum probabilities in microsystems. Four different kinds of condensations of the metronic structure can be distinguished. They correspond to different physical entities:

The higher dimensinal hyperspace R12 has six additional dimensions:i) x7 and x8 form a complementary information-spaceii) x9, x10, x11 and x12 form the space of life processes and networks of subtle energies which nourish the informational fields x7 and x8.

The epistomological basis of Heim´s theory is based on a multi-valued logical system, developed by Burkhard Heim as a basis of his field-theory so that the qualitative aspect of reality could be included.

Burkharfd Heim´s theory seems to offer a new formalism to describe the quantitative aspect of a multidimensional universe mathematically, which is much more characterized by quality than by quantity. It integrates matter, bios, psyche and pneuma and forms a transcendentally open system. "

The dimensions themselves have metaphysical names. But that detracts NOT from the PHYSICS.

Take Care!

MMC

12th March 2006 - 07:31 PM

That's still not metaphysics...

QUOTE

Burkharfd Heim´s theory seems to offer a new formalism to describe the quantitative aspect of a multidimensional universe mathematically, which is much more characterized by quality than by quantity. It integrates matter, bios, psyche and pneuma and forms a transcendentally open system.

Who exactly is claiming this?

That's not what I've been reading...

I've been looking at his abstracted co-ordinate system...that's a solid approach to dealing with an unknown system by establishing a functional base, where you can fill in the blanks with time. Essentially, multi-dimensional algrebra for physical reality.

Zephir

12th March 2006 - 07:43 PM

QUOTE (MMC+Mar 12 2006, 10:31 PM)

I've been looking at his abstracted co-ordinate system...that's a solid approach to dealing with an unknown system by establishing a functional base, where you can fill in the blanks with time.

Selector calculus would be one part of what I was describing. The dimensions used by Heim are also abstract representations of underlying phenomenon. These too would be replaced with real aspects at a later stage.

I corrected the warning at Wikipedia on 'Selector Calculus' as it was being commented on by people who don't really understand the abstract approach of establishing a quasi-physical framework as a base guide.

QUOTE

The neutrality of this article is disputed because:

Heim theory is not part of mainstream physics and is certainly not a theory of everything as that term is used in mainstream physics. These ideas seem to be regarded as cranky by mainstream physicists who have even heard of it. Nor, it seems, do mainstream mathematicians recognize such any such topic as "selector calculus". "Selector calculus" has been designed to function with an abstract representation of reality, to provide a framework from which to conduct exploratory mathematical analysis. Its application is strictly limited to Heim theory, which is why both mainstream physicists and mathematicians have very little knowledge of "selector calculus". Its abstract nature is similar to Heisenburg's Matrix mechanics, which physicists also found difficult and abstract, although it functioned. Only those with extensive experience of Heim theory would be fully understand what is being described here, without such a background, you will not be able to place the work in its proper context.

Now SELECTOR CALCULUS would not really be a PHYSICAL THEORY, but a MATHEMATICAL TOOL.

It would be analagout to Newton inventing Integral and Differential Calculus as a necessary tool to fully engage his theory of Gravity. For example to be eble to layer a solid ball of mass as first as concentric layers, and then model it all the mass being concentrated at the center. You need integral calculus for that.

As to Heisenberg Matric Mechanics. Von Neumann in his Foundations of Quantum Mechanics showed that Matric Mechanics and the Schrodinger Wave Mechanics were both examples of an infininte HILBERT Algebra Space.

Later Dirac in his book, did the same thing and introduced the Bra-Ket notation.

Heim because he quantized space avoided singularities by avoiding infinitesimals thus he invented a discrete Calculus. Thus he is on a par with Newton Newton in inventing his own Mathematicsal tools.

The Heim group is working on reworking the Heim Theory by avoiding the Selector Calculus and using standard Calculus Terminology. The key quantizattion occurs at the Christoffel symbol stage.

What do you all think of the above as a Wikipedia article revision to the Selector Calculus?

will314159

12th March 2006 - 09:35 PM

I made the following post in the talk section on Selector Calculus

QUOTE

The man from Harvard misses the point. Heim theory is the Only Physics theory that is deep and broad enough to correctly predict the particle masses from first principle!

There is a problem with General relativity. It fails at the Singularity, that is r=0, to wit; where the radius equal zero. Quantum mechanics solved that for electro dynamics by quantization.

How do you do that for General Relativity? You have to quantize space. You have to do that by using a DISCRETE CALCULUS.

Heim would not be the first PHYSISCT to invent a branch of Mathematics. Archimedes, Newton come to mind. Newton had the problem of showing that the mass of the earth could be treated as existing at a point in the center. To do that, he had to integrate the sphere of the earth as concentric rings and sum the masses up. This is the beginning of Ingegral calculus. Similar problems led to the invention of Differential Calclus. the problems of motions and gravitation gave birth to infinitesimal Calcululs.

The problems of quantization of space has given birth to SELECTOR CALCULS.

Below is the comment I was going to make " Now SELECTOR CALCULUS would not really be a PHYSICAL THEORY, but a MATHEMATICAL TOOL.

It would be analagous to Newton inventing Integral and Differential Calculus as a necessary tool to fully engage his theory of Gravity. For example to be eble to layer a solid ball of mass as first as concentric layers, and then model it all the mass being concentrated at the center. You need integral calculus for that.

As to Heisenberg Matric Mechanics. Von Neumann in his Foundations of Quantum Mechanics showed that Matrix Mechanics and the Schrodinger Wave Mechanics were both examples of an infininte HILBERT Algebra Space.

Later Dirac in his book, did the same thing and introduced the Bra-Ket notation.

Heim because he quantized space avoided singularities by avoiding infinitesimals thus he invented a discrete Calculus. Thus he is on a par with Newton Newton in inventing his own Mathematicsal tools.

The Heim group is working on reworking the Heim Theory by avoiding the Selector Calculus and using standard Calculus Terminology. The key quantizattion occurs at the Christoffel symbol stage. "

And I guarantee you that when Dirac introduce the Dirac Delta function it was not being used in the HARVARD of his day and it did not have a rigorous mathematical foundation. It does today and it is indispensible in Physics and Electrical Engineering.

In Summary, the article should stay, all this stop sign crap should be removed, and I nominate Harvard for deletion. I am only kidding about Harvard being deleted. Just that small mindedness should be deleted.--Will314159 21:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Selector_calculus"

MMC

12th March 2006 - 10:13 PM

I had a look at the person who wrote the origonal POV warning. Apparently, it is someone who claims to work for IBM as hacker on Linux kernels.

Explains a lot.

I've edited the warning once again and removed the stupid warning written by that user and left a clearer picture.

QUOTE

The neutrality of this article is disputed because:

Heim theory is not part of mainstream physics and is certainly not a theory of everything as that term is used in mainstream physics. "Selector calculus" has been designed to function with an abstract representation of reality, to provide a framework from which to conduct exploratory mathematical analysis. Its application is strictly limited to Heim theory, which is why both mainstream physicists and mathematicians have very little knowledge of "selector calculus". Its abstract nature is similar to Heisenburg's Matrix mechanics, which physicists also found difficult and abstract, although it functioned. Only those with extensive experience of Heim theory would be able to fully understand what is being described here, without such a background, you will not be able to place the work in its proper context.

I don't really see what the problem is. So, Heim created a form of math to suit his needs, what's all the fuss?

Mathematical operators that we would use, are not employed by the universe, therefore, to replicate reality you MUST bend mathematics to your needs. Whilst it may become abstract in one sense, technically, as long as it adheres to defined rules and logic, its will function just as well.

will314159

12th March 2006 - 10:39 PM

NMC

Context is key. I guess it means the same as background or the reason the Selector Calculus was invented. Or its importance in the scheme of things. I couldn't resist to adding another comment in the talk page.

i think you are the author of the Selector Calculus article. Consider adding a llittle context to it.

here was my additional context comment in the talk page

QUOTE

the smallmindedness above is complete crap. Heim Theory is the only physical theory that correctly predicts particle masses from first principles. take a moment to digest that. There is no other theory that predicts particle masses from first principles!!!!!!!!!!! See article on Heim theory and links. The reason for the selector calculus is that Heim needed to quantize space to solve the singualarity that occurs ar zero radius in general relativity. He could not use traditional infinitesmal calculus so he invented Selector Calculus. Have any other physicists invented mathematics? eh duh... Archimedes, Newton, Dirac, Witten. I therefore nominate the negative comments of the above gentlemenn, and I use the term loosely, for deletion.--Will314159 22:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

MMC

12th March 2006 - 11:21 PM

QUOTE

I think you are the author of the Selector Calculus article. Consider adding a llittle context to it.

Sorry, nothing to do with me. I just understand the approach that Heim is using...I've seen it before, just expressed differently.

will314159

12th March 2006 - 11:33 PM

NMC

I think i mispoke. That Selector article has plenty context.

Being a lawyer and having had my share of jury trials, i'm of the sledge hammer school. Hit them over the head with it sufficiently that they can;t possibly miss the point.

Take Care!

hdeasy

13th March 2006 - 09:46 AM

Hi Will314159, Milka & co.,

Well done on all your Wikipedia work - you certainly have been prolific in the discussions. It's good to see, after a preponderance of Wikipedians who were unjustifiably negative about Heim for so long. I think the article is in quite good shape now.

Regards!

Kettricken

13th March 2006 - 09:49 AM

Heim Theory seems to have all the signs to be something that counts

- it has it´s own mathematic invented- formulas that actually works and can be compared thru numerous experiments by welknow institutes like Cern and Fermi-labs- formulas that do some predictions- it is highly disputed

The last statement is very important.

If the new idea don´t stir up and leave peaople with a "so what" its a pointless idea. All groundbreaking new ideas should be and are disputed. Here we have to be very clear and point on the physics and mathematics involved, nothing else.

araven

13th March 2006 - 10:51 AM

I didnt want to dissapoint you with my thoughts regarding the formulae, but if I dont raise them here I will dissapoint myself. Especially now that Wikipedia article is being updated I think it is important to be able to explain the less obvious and the somewhat problematic sides of mass formula.

The minor among these sides is the constants, this is how the mass is found:

CODE

mass = miu(pi, G, h_bar, c) * F(pi, exp, k, Q, P, kappa, x)

As you see, fundamental physical constants are just a scale factor in the formula. Factor that converts some hypothetical number generated by F() to kilograms. Since theory claims to explain fundamental structures I have honestly expected F() to depend on them as well.

But as I mentioned, this seems to be the less problematic side. The really problematic one is, and I will quote Olaf on that, the whole formula F() seems like a huge numerical combination of "if - else"s.

QUOTE

Another remark on the "sophisticated" equation. The whole thing here simply is a combined equation that has terms that are switched on or of via the quantum numbers. For instance(2-k)= 1 mesons / 0 baryons(k-1)= 0 mesons/ 1 baryons(1-(kappa*Q*(2-k)) = 0 my / 1 else

As you understand with enough "if-else"s any result can be obtained.

Please dont take me wrong, I am still excited about the theory, because I believe that the basic asumption made by Heim is a logical one. However, at this point mass formulae is no longer a convincing argument for me. Especially after it has showed a low sensitivity to the changes in quadruples.

will314159

13th March 2006 - 11:07 AM

Good Points Araven

As to the latter1)

QUOTE

As you understand with enough "if-else"s any result can be obtained.

I agree. The program just becomes a ROM. a Read only Memory, or a look up table with the values pre-embedded in it.

I see a simplifying approach. De-esclate the program. Just simplify it to calcuate the mass of ONE PARTICLE and see if a lot of the if-else's drop out and simplicity reveals itself.

then the former point2) the results depend on geometrical constants and the physical factors are a scale.

I don't have a problem with that. Aren't the results inverse to the square of G?But as a Geometrical theory it should mainly depend on pi and the base of natural logarithms and geometrical constants.

It bothers me too that all the different versions home in on the same territory. I'd like to see a flowchart of the program.

Take Care!

will314159

13th March 2006 - 12:13 PM

Wikipedia is getting to be a challenge. They keep messing with the Selector Calculus article. I really raised the ante on it. It's kind of a sideshow.

QUOTE

The neutrality of this article is disputed because:Heim theory is not yet part of mainstream physics and is certainly not yet a theory of everything as that term is used in mainstream physics. These ideas seem to be regarded as cranky by some mainstream physicists who have not yet even heard of it or have not yet studied it, even though it is claimed to be the ONLY theory that correctly predicts the particle masses from first principles. Nor, it seems, that mainstream mathematicians recognize any such topic as "selector calculus" even though mathematicians are acquainted with discrete and finite methods. The purpose of this article is to acquaint people with Selector Calculus, including mathematicians. For details and discussion of this dispute, see the talk page.

Selector calculus is a form of calculus, employed by Burkhard Heim in formulating Heim theory, his controversial Theory of Everything. It uses difference operators similar to finite element methods to calculate analogues to derivatives and path integrals. The motivation in using discrete methods was to avoid the singularity that occurrs when the radius approaches zero in general relativity. Heim theory quantizes space time. Heim Theory successes, as claimed by adherents, is a theory that correctly predicts particle masses, and recently with the Droscher-Hauser extensions as published in a mainstream journal proposes faster than light travel. See Heim Theory article.

Serenity

13th March 2006 - 12:30 PM

Hi all,

I'm the main French contributor to fr.wikipedia. In Heim Theory, I prefer the geometry issues rather than the mass formulas... I have questions for anyone who has answers :

1) I don't see in HQT (Heim Quantum Theory) the necessity of 2D metrons. Why not 3D, 4D or 12D elementary (hyper)cubes ? Besides, I hardly succeed in imagining a 12D universe made with 2D metrons...

3) Is it possible to consider Heim's Universe as a giant matrix (euclidian) which is curved, by matter and energy ? I mean, I feel some geometries cannot be modelised that way (for instance : a 2D paper sheet with squares cannot be put on a 3D sphere without "ripples")...I was hoping of a modelisation of the Universe like this one : - a void universe is defined by u(x) = x (euclidian) where x is the 12D coordinates of a point - any other universe would be defined by this u(x) where x is the coordinates of the point if the universe had been flat and empty.

4) I don't understand the (physical) meaning of the "R4 -> R8 -> R4" transformation (described in many AIAA papers)... If you have explanations...

I have no means to draw a flowchart at the moment, but the flow is exactly like the order of functions in formulae.c, aka:

calc_charge -> calc_Q -> calc_N -> .... -> calc_mass

QUOTE

I see a simplifying approach. De-esclate the program. Just simplify it to calcuate the mass of ONE PARTICLE and see if a lot of the if-else's drop out and simplicity reveals itself.

I will try to perform a symbolic computation using matlab and see what becomes of formulas for one of the particles. But what really will make me happy is the sight of the original differential formula. Numerical solution will be much more convincing I believe.

will314159

13th March 2006 - 02:09 PM

Welcome Serenity.

I had modified your French Wiki article External lilnks to point to this forum and to particle mass calculators. I used a Systrans translator as my French is limited to a year at the High School level. I wasn't skillful enough to get on the talk page. I hope that you found us using that llink. But physorg seems to Google at the top of the list.

your questions are at the HDeasy level. The metron, or planck square is the starting place and that is an experimental ad hoc result. We also know experimentally the particles are many metrons in size. So the question is how do you show theoretically how many metrons does it take for the cyclical resonances that make up matter. (protosimplexes) Other than the protosimplex site. i have seen one PDF paper that was given at a university in England. I have to try to find it. There is also a discussion somewhere of past inflation.

arven

Actually the Maxima code that Martin supplied is the easiest to understand. I've posted it. Maybe I"ll just hand flow chart it, scan it, and post it. Maxima turned out to be really neat for a 17 meg file. Plots, integrates, differentiates, based on LISP. Just like he said. Hit Enter, then BOOM, you get the results. Just like SPONY's Java calculator. The outputting though needs some work.http://zeena.org/Heim/Maxima/heim_maxima.txt

Take Care!

millka

13th March 2006 - 02:47 PM

QUOTE (araven+Mar 13 2006, 10:51 AM)

I didnt want to dissapoint you with my thoughts regarding the formulae, ...

hi araven,

first, my disclaimer. im just a dumb programmer. all physics stuff that follow might be complete bullshit. i neither understand the math nor the physics of HT. all im capable of is trying to follow the general line of thought in HT and comparing that to what i learned from books like Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and lotsa similar books.

The important part is the number 26 at the end. Todays standard model needs 26 different constants as is base. half of them (13) are particle masses. 12 are known and measured particles. one is the higgs boson, which still hasnt been caught nor seen. its mass has been calculated so that it holds the whole shabang together - maybe they should call it the duct tape boson (just kidding). so for 12 particles they have no formula at all. and they feel the pain ..

Now, how does look HT to a sparrow brain like me, who has no clue about Heims math nor physics ? At the very base is the metron, these very tiny 2-d things (my way to simple mental image sees one square on math paper). I wonder if metron is just another name for the branes, loops, strings in mainstream physics. most likely not exactly the same, but similar enuff that i cant tell them apart .. ;-P

According to Heim, empty spacetime is full of these flat metrons (and what they tell in loop quantum gravity sounds similar). my mental image is a sheet of math paper. so lots of flat metron means nothing in the sense of empty space.

Now if one of them is not flat but somehow wrinkled, it is a particle. the precise way how it is wrinkled determines what partcicle. ok, i know Heim speaks of a dynamic flux between different states instead of someting static, but please lets not overload my poor tiny sparrow brain .. ;-P

Next, Heim tries to find all the different ways how a metron can be wrinkled (in 6 r even 8 or 12 dimensions - yuck). he builds subclasses of foldings that are identical (e.g. fold the square once along the center line from front to back, fold another one along the center line from right to left - what do you get ? two different views of the same particle - one is rotated 90° versus the other). that way he reduces the number of possible foldings to the interesting (= having different physical meaning) foldings.

the exact way of folding determines the physical properties = the quantum numbers, e.g. folding this way determines the spin, folding that way determines the charge, etc. folding both ways gives spin and charge.

next he kicks out those foldings which are just higher energetic states of particles. how ? i dunno. i guess a particle doesnt change its quantum numbers, just his mass/energy when it is in a higher energetic state.

so thats the F(..) part of the mass formula. the various quantum number tupels select which particles mass you will get. if you dont like the tricky numerical if..else stuff, try to rip the F part into its components. ideally there should be one subformula for spin, one for charge, etc

most likely it will be a bit more complex, and they wont separate as easy as that. but im very happy if parts of the formula cancel out on certain values of certain quantum numbers. one monolithic formula would be much worse.

those subformulae should tell us something about how spin, charge, etc. come into the world from just folding emtpy space aka flat metrons !!

if that is not enuff to win a trip to stockholm, what else ..

i would expect some physicists would consider selling their grandma for those formulae, but maybe they just too busy hunting the higgs boson with their shiny new large hadron collider gun.

ok, now about the first half of the mass formula: miu (..). what goes in are universal constants like c, h, G.

According to Heim, 10^108 years ago (thats a gazillion years before bigbang), the universe started with just one metron filling the whole universe (he says three, but you know my tiny brain ..). next the universe starts to expand while the metrons get smaller and their number increases. quite a while the metrons cant fold to form particles. fortunately, around the time of the big bang, the metron size is just right to start folding, so energy and matter appear. the metrons are still getting smaller and the universe still expands, but the rate of change has become veeeery small (see pic at bottom of page 5).

now look at page 22 of the doc above. G, h, and the electric and magnetic constants depend on the current metron size.

i guess, that requires a scaling factor to handle the extremely slowly shrinking metron size.

you mention that the formula can be tweaked to give pretty much every desired result ? i hope so !

cause as beautiful as the mass formula and theory is, and as close as it hits - it still misses. the calculated values are way outside the error bands of the measured values. Im pretty sure that simply means that the current mass formula is wrong. However, its still much better than no formula at all. I hope that the basic STRUCTURE of the formula is correct. maybe it needs adjustment at this factor and that exponent. maybe we need 7 or 9 dimensions instead of 6 or 8. i have no clue. they need 10 or 11 in string / brane theory.

i mean thats like searchin for a pot of gold on a whole continent and the tricorder tells me: dude, one step further and youre almost sittin on it ..

if i have to bet, i would say that HT is wrong. not completly wrong but wrong enough to miss the measured values. so it wont sweep away loop/string/brane theory in the sense of completly replacing it.

on the other hand, it has that mass formula with hits as close as 99.9 % in your implementation. to me that means is just a little bit wrong. way to good to throw away. way to close to be irrelevant.

and it seems to be able to link the folding stuff to physical properties / quantum numbers.

and it reduces the number of universal constants by at least 12. all without higgs bosons or santa claus particles.

if i were king for - umm - just one year, i would lock up Witten, Smolin, Dröscher and a couple of other smart guys in one room, so that they have to look over HT and string/brane/loop theory together. Witten did the trick years ago, when they had 7 slighty different string theories. im sure if they would start putting the puzzle pieces together, they would make some progress.

thats why im happy that you see possibilties to fiddle with the formula. They will have to fiddle if they put HT/ST/BT/LT together.

thats, umm, the "new age" part of Heim. i have only scanned that stuff. Heim idea was that those upper dimenions somehow control what happens in the lower ones.There are quotes of Heim in that area, which put him pretty close to the creationist/intelligent design folks and certain other groups that a physicist shouldnt meet during daylight .. ;-PE.g. Heim at least once hold a lecture for ImagoMundi which relates to Resch Verlag (Heims publisher). Resch mostly publishes new age stuff. One topic of a late Heim lecture was how to bypass death using those upper dimensions ...

Stuff like that is why serious physicists refuse to even touch anything from Heim.

I really admire what Heim found out in his early years. i have doubts about his later stuff.

Im sure that if i had to live without hands, almost no sight and almost deaf - plus several decades of unifying field theories which were too hard for Albert - i would have been in mental hospital.

I hope everybody understands that i have a lot of respect for Heim anyway. But sometimes life puts too much weight on someones shoulders ..

MMC

13th March 2006 - 03:28 PM

QUOTE (spony+Mar 12 2006, 03:18 AM)

Hello everyone,

Just a quick post since it's 4am, and I want to get some sleep.

I've found the bug concerning mu in my code. In my code I had the following in all the Particle class implementations:

CODE

protected int getStructureDistributor(boolean timeHelicity) {

double alpha_P = Math.PI * Q * (kappa + MathL.comb(P, 2));

double alpha_Q = Math.PI * Q * (Q + MathL.comb(P, 2));

This should've been:

CODE

protected int getStructureDistributor(boolean timeHelicity) {

double alpha_P = Math.PI * Q * (kappa + MathL.comb(P, 2));

double alpha_Q = Math.PI * Q * ((Q*(k-1)) + MathL.comb(P, 2));

Apparantly that difference only effects mu which is why it went by unnoticed for so long....

I've also discovered via. the excel spreadsheet from olaf (thanks olaf) that the matter concerning the different interpretation of how to calculate qx, which are (1982):

Seems to have to do with different interpretations of the parameter x for particles. Particles in my code are given an x where as in the excel spreadsheet they are x+1. Olaf could you elaberate on how x should be choosen for a particle? I thought x was supposed to be 0 < x < P for any combination of the other 4 particle input parameters k, P, Q and kappa. In the 1982 formula this works fine but in the 1989 that +2 suddenly ruins it all. Are you certain that the +2 is not a mistake? Currently I have removed the +2 from the 1989 formula code.

Finaly it seems that a1, a2 and a3 are not up to date in the Selected Results note for the delta particles and thus neither is the mass of those particles. Does anyone here know what the delta particles represent? I wonder if they are particles with unknown mass. In Selected Results they are all compared to an experimental mass of "~1232"? Perhaps this means their mass is only estimated and it currently doesn't make sence to compare them to anything? This would certainly explain that their mass results are the only results which don't correlate.

I look forward to answers

Regards Martin

Cheers spony, I'll update the C# code...

MMC

13th March 2006 - 03:35 PM

Right guys, we now have a SourceForge site up and running. You may access it here:

Just a quick thought on the interpretation of the German phrase "nichtmaterieller Hintergrund der Welt". Although I have browsed someof the German papers and lectures on the various websites, I am not surefrom the top of my head how this specific phrase was used.

However, a possible translation of "nichtmaterieller Hintergrund der Welt"could also be "background metric you are working on".

If you check e.g. the HT Wikipedia article, which is shaping up nicely, and lookat the table with the comparison with other theories such as general string theory or loop quantum gravity, you'll see an entry "space-time as a background metric".

Whether a theory is working with or without background metric isquite an interesting topic in mathematical physics.

So would it make sense to interprete "nichtmaterieller Hintergrund der Welt"as the very mainstream physics term "background metric"?

Cheers,

L.

araven

13th March 2006 - 04:55 PM

Thank you for the reply, Millka, I have enjoyed the reading. :-) Somehow, I have never stumbled upon the presentation before, mass factor indeed becomes logical after reading it.

The mass formula implementation is most likely to contain errors, this is not what confuses me however. The confusing part is that you have to invest if you want the formula to return wrong results. :-) You can compare the two tables I posted. In first I used the quadruples from selected results, in second self generated quadruples. Different quadruples, and almost same results.

Regarding "if-else", it will be hard to convince a sceptic in validity of the theory with formula that looks like (as Will said) a look-up table. I am not sure what equation the solution represents, but if there is a differential equation which can be solved using numerical methods things would become much more clear IMHO.

The doubt of errors could be removed if someone unbiased towards this or other implementation could compare the formulas. It should be relatively easy to do, just some symbolic software, a lot of copy pasting and subtraction of one implementation from another. :-)

P.S. MMC, I have made an account on sourceforge (same name as here). :-)

MMC

13th March 2006 - 05:34 PM

Hi araven,

I have added you to the developers. Please upload a version of your code when ever you can. I'm just working out how to use SourceForge's CVS, then I'll upload a version too.

congratulations on gettring rid of the bullcrap warnings on the main Heim theory article and the Selector Calculus article at Wikipedia. i hope I was able to help.

Araven.

The Maxima code is a symbolic code. I'm working through it. Even trying to interpret it line by line trying to see what is going on. I'm really amazed by Maxima. I mean interpret in the sense as opposed to compile.

I taught high school albebra about 20 years ago. If the kids had something like that to do their homework with. Oh heck, even college students could use that for their homework. I gotta get my 11 year old English nephew interested in it. His math problems would be over!

Take Care!

will314159

13th March 2006 - 08:16 PM

In case anybody has had problems downloading, here is the Maxima particle mass code**********************8

/* Maxima version of Heim Theory Mass Equations by Martin Andrews (mdda123) *//* Thanks to John Reed for the original Mathematica source to work from *//* BSD : retain credits above */

"# These appear to be superceeded by the (Lex ~= LL), x and Wn0 defined below;";"# So they become the same, update 1/4BB in x to 1/(4BB);";"x :(1-QQ-binomial(PP,2))*(2-k)+1/4*BB*(a1+k^3/(4*HH)*(a2+a3/(4*BB)));";"LL :(1-Kappa)*QQ*(2-k);x :(1-QQ-binomial(PP,2))*(2-k)+1/(4*BB)*(a1+k^3/(4*HH)*(a2+a3/(4*BB)));Wn0:AA*exp(x)*(1-Eta(1,0))^LL+(PP-QQ)*(1-binomial(PP,2))*(1-binomial(QQ,3))*(1-sqrt(Eta(1,0)))^2*sqrt(2);";

"Mass of all the particles:";M:matrix(map(lambda([aa],SafeCalc([name,Mass],aa)), quantum));

anon.

13th March 2006 - 10:20 PM

keep in mind that I am merely a cs grad student who stumbled upon this board, but I have to agree with araven that the mass formula, as it is calculated above, seems an awful lot like it's fitting a pre-calculated table..

Serenity

13th March 2006 - 10:23 PM

Hi again !

will314159 : thx for your contributions to the French Wikipedia. I've just contributed again to improve it (though I feel a bit alone among the French community). I can't wait for your English paper

millka & leovinus : thx for the answers ! I suppose I'll try to understand the meaning of the subspace G after the other ones

I have another questions :

1') Do we know how many kind of protosimplex there are ? Are there only the non-excited one and the excited one ?

2') Is there somewhere on the www a geometrical description of a basic protosimplex ?

From your post it appears that you are ableto read German? If you ever have a free momentdo you think you could translate"Heim's talk to mortals" into English by maybe just recordingyour voice and then sharing it as an mp3 file?If you are too busy, no problem.

will314159

14th March 2006 - 01:15 AM

neutrino

the text you're talking about is some 180 pages. you can do some translation yourself. there are all kinds of translators on the web. alta vista is one.

just translate a page at a time. that's what i do. that's all i can absorb anyway.

there are some mp3 tapes in the pipeline I believe.i, personally am waiting for a book about my speed, general relatvity for Dummies

Take Care!

Take care!

MMC

14th March 2006 - 01:50 AM

mdda123, I have activated an account for you, so you can upload a copy of your code anytime you like. Just create a new module for it.

leovinus about translation of "nichtmaterieller Hintergrund der Welt":Im sure the late Heim puts the mentioned metaphysical meaning into it. I dont know if it contains something like the 'background metric' stuff in todays mathematical/physical sense. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe Heims metaphysical meaning in the "Hintergrund" comes from an overinterpretation. I really have no clue.

--

araven:Im happy it entertained you I just hope, that not too many real phsicists became desparate enuff to hang themself after reading my extremely sloppy overview ..

about differential equation:I dont remember if ive read it here or elsewhere, but the Heim Theory Group tries to translate their stuff using conventional calculus, except at the very small scale, where Selector Calculus (SC) is absolutely required. As far as i understand, at the base of HT, SC is absolutely required to avoid those nasty singularity problems which arise when conventional calculus is used

mass formula is just a obfuscated lookup-table - 1:ive read that elsewhere too, but couldnt google it anymore. i think it was Professor Norbert Dragon ( http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~dragon/ ) in the de.alt.sci newsgroup, who said something similar. Professor Dragon is a theoretical physicist working on QM and geometry of GR, so i guess he knows a thing or three about our topic. He says HT is complete crackpot. So case closed ?Hmm ..He keeps saying its crackpot, for the last 7 years (first post i found was from 1999). Sometimes he says the mass formula (MF) is not available. Sometimes he says he recalculated it. when he recalculated it, the results were completely wrong - not just 1 or 0.1 percent off, but way way way more. Sometimes he says the MF is just a clever hidden table ("clever" added by me, he wouldnt "lower" himself enuff to at least honoring Heim for a nifty obfuscation).I dont know understand how he can recalculate an unavailable MF. I dont understand how he finds out that MF is just a table if his recalculated results are way off. Hmm, looks like Prof. Dragon cant decide which horse he wants to ride ..Now if i were a theoretical physicist, i wouldnt waste my time again and again over seven years with pointless discussions with UFO/NewAge/crackpot idiots. I would sit down and write a short paper showing why HT is complete crackpot. Then when im really bored, i would slap the UFO/NewAge idiots with a link to that paper.However there is no such paper.Not from Prof. Dragon.Not from any other serious physicist.In 30 years since HT came up.I googled my butt of for weeks to find some serious scientific review of HT ripping it apart. I found nothing.Of course that doesnt prove HT true. But it doesnt prove HT false either.

mass formula is just a obfuscated lookup-table - 2:hmm, how would i program an obfuscated table ..to be really clever, i would use a different obfuscation function for every particlei need a function mi = fi(xi) that calculates the mass mi of particle i from the obfuscated value xi. those xi will be hidden in the big MF. to make sure that nobody notices, i have to pick the possible set of xi's pretty clever. allowed values for xi are: integer number literals, pi, e, G, h, c, magnetic and electric constants, other somehow innocent looking subformulae like e^c or pi * 3, and all kinds of permutations using those basic value set and associated subformulae. all other values are forbidden. we dont want any non integer number literals like 1.337 or something like that in the MF, that would hint at the obfuscation.to calculate xi from mi, i need the inverse function xi = gi(mi), where mi = fi(gi(mi)).finding gi() looks like lotsa work. i would hide from such an amount of work.Oh, and i forgot a tiny additional constraint on gi - it has to be extensible later, when Dröscher comes along, extends HT to 8 dimensions, adds the remaining forces and interactions needed for a shiny TOE, predicts the graviphotons and the hyperdrive stuff, and extends the MF so that it does not only calculates the particle masses, but their lifetimes as well.If someone demands from me to find such an gi(), i would immediately hang myself - cause thats hurst less and is way faster .. ;-PThere are easier problems, which are not computable.

mass formula is just a obfuscated lookup-table - 3:If its just a clever table, it should be possible to show that by reverse engineering the MF algorithm. first step would be reducing the full MF to just one simpler MFi for every particle i.We should definitely investigate, if MF is just a table, but i "fear" we will find out it is not ..

--

neutrino (about translation of MBB lecture):Yep, german is my native language. Unfortunately, math is not ..Im just a programmer, my world consists of integers < 2^32 .. ;-PMy english might be enuff for funny chat, but i simply dont know enough of the english slang in physics and math. In Physics i cant calculate anything beyond special relativty. In math anything beyond simple integration and differentiation is outer space for me. In geometry better keep it euclidian. If i translate Heim, even the more mertal MBB lecture, the result would be just a pile of crap.Heims style is pretty hard to read, even in german. He puts a lot of information in one sentence, where everyody else would blabber half a page. its extremly easy to change the meaning just by messing up the grammar. and then there are subtle difference in german and english math/physics slang, e.g. a very simple example: in german "reell" means a real number, while "real" means being part of reality - i would translate both as "real", but obviously that would be utterly wrong.So im sorry, but i fear i cant help.

To translate Heim, it needs someone who has lived a while in an english speaking country as well as in a german speaking country. and that one has not only to understand but has to be able to use the slang of math and physics in english and german. it wouldnt hurt at all, if that one knows GR and QM really good. That sounds like Hdeasy, doesnt it ? .. ;-)

neutrino

14th March 2006 - 07:10 AM

Hi Millka,

No problem, I'll try machine translation per Will's recommendation,may not get me very far, but it should be interesting...

By the way, you need to stop being so modest, your posts areenjoyable to read and enlightening, that combination tends tobe rare..., besides if you are a sparrow brain, I shudder to thinkhow my brain compares...

hdeasy

14th March 2006 - 09:17 AM

Hi Serenity, Will314159, Milka etc.,

First on objections to 2-dimensional elements constructing a 12 dimensional world. This should not be a problem for physicists as they have already accepted Penrose's idea of a spin matrix, which was used by the Loop Quantum Gravity people to a 4-D world made of 2-D surface elements just like the Metrons - it is also notable that the Metrons and the surface elements of Loop Quantum Gravity have a spin normal to the area. So even though LQG and Heim quantize General Relativity in different ways, they both get to the same result on these surface elements.

And note that these surface elements have nothing to do with String Theory's branes really: the main reason being in LQG and Heim they are part of the woodwork or background, while in String Theory they are objects floating on top of space, which is seen as a neutral background. So a lot of things unite LQG and Heim, not least among them being that for them space is not just a background, whereas for String Theory it is. See the table I put in English Wiki - a translation of the German one by Von Ludwiger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory#L...d_String_Theory

Well done Milka on your attempt to put into words what's going on in the mass formula - a sort of verbal flow chart. You might be able to expand on that to make a user-friendly intro to the theory. You're right ot say that Heim Theory doesn't get the masses exactly right in all cases - in a few it is well within the error bars, But remember that he was working alone initially, so may have taken some short-cuts and approximations - that's why different version of the formula look so different. Changing the approximations to make them more exact may get even better mass estimates for those particles not yet within the error bars. But don't forget - the standard model and even matrix QCD are many times further away from the error bars than Heim. At least he is in the right ball park, and as Spony pointed out a while back, running his calculator or other implementations is 'instantaneous' or milliseconds or less of CPU on simple machines - QCD uses supercomputers groaning and creaking with massive CPU usage to get les accurate result on a handful of particles only. As for being a look-up table - your own descriptive run-down on the algorithm of the Formula program as well as other descriptions show that there are consistent parts involving spin, charge etc - so as long as there is that internal consistency, it is unlikely that the whole thing is a fudge. The respect that Heim commanded from Von Braun, Heisenberg, Von Wieizacker, Jourdan et al. makes the idea of such a crude trick as a simple look up table virtually unthinkable. It just doesn't have the look and feel of that..

On the projection R4 -> H8 -> R4 : this is shorthand for: First, by taking a tensor of high enough order in the initial quanization of General Relativity, 36 or 64 terms remain non-zero or in an 8x8 matrix with some zeroes. That can be interpreted as describing a 6 or 8 dimensional space. Then to get real particles in 4-D spacetime, you must project from 8 dimensional structures to 4-D ones. That's the second arrow above. As for description of the protosimplexes - I think Engon's site is still the best for that. Also, that one in Datadiwn - which I pointed out even earlier, has something on taht, derivation of the metron etc. and is also a bit for normal mortals: only problem is English version has some symbols missing (** here) - the German version is better in that regard. -

First on metrons:A single elementary particle is characterized not only by *** and the limiting distances of its gravitational field, but also by its Compton wavelength. R– vanishes in empty space when the mass of the field source approaches zero, while R +, **, and the Compton wavelength all diverge. However, since the smallest geometrical unit must be a real number and a property of empty space its value has to remain finite. As shown in [1], only a single product having this property can be formed from the 4 characteristic lengths above. The result is an area, , bounded on all sides by geodesics, whose present size turns out to be 6.15´10 –70 m 2 . This quantity, called a metron, represents the smallest area existing in empty space and requires the differential calculus to be replaced by a calculus of finite areas. Accordingly, a whole chapter in [1] is devoted to the development of a difference calculus considering the finite area, . This enables any differential expression to be metronized. It follows that in any subspace R n , whose dimensionality n is divisible by 2, the geometrical continuum is replaced by a metronic lattice formed by n–dimensional volumes bounded on all sides by metrons. Thus, R 6 and R 12 are 6–dimensional and 12–dimensional metronic lattices, respectively. Since all dimensions are metronized, even time proceeds in finite, calculable steps. By the use of a difference calculus it becomes possible to introduce into the nonlinear system of geometric structures in R 6 ."

Protosimplexes:" Actually, such a particle appears as an elementary flow system in R6 (equivalent to energy flows) of primitive dynamic units called protosimplexes, which combine to form flux aggregates. The protosimplex flow is a circulatory, periodic motion similar to an oscillation. A particle can only exist if the flux period comprises at least one full cycle, so that the duration of a particle¢s stability is always expressible as an integer multiple of the flux period. Every dynamical R 6 –structure possible constitutes a flux aggregate described by a set of 6 quantum numbers. All of them, however, result from a very simple basic symmetry, essentially determined by the configuration number k, which can only assume the values k = 1 and k = 2. The empirically introduced baryonic charge then corresponds to k – 1, i.e. k = 1 refers to mesons and k = 2 to baryons. " - etc.

Oh and Will314159 - excellent work on Wikipedia - you are like the 7th cavalry saving me from the Harvard guy and other bullies "

Kettricken

14th March 2006 - 10:38 AM

I would be interesting to see a calculation of all masses that are presented in this link:

The calculation and program we now have in Java, C, C#, Pascal, Fortran, Excel and the math applictions should imo give a good value of all of them, and just not the selected results given by the Heim Group.

will314159

14th March 2006 - 12:10 PM

neutrino

unfortunately, that particular pdf document seems to be locked. when i tried to copy and paste the text to Word so I could do Systrans translation, all I got was gibberish.

We may have to wait for the Ludwiger translations of the Heim tapes that HDeasy mentioned.

There's an ongoing discussion in Wikipedia Talk pages about the necessity for Selector Calculus. I've seen somewhere where it can be replaced by by the Finite Difference Method for Tensors.

If you think Milka is eloquent is here, you should read him in the discussion or talk pages of Wikipedia under Heim Theory or Selector Calcullus.

I've participated some to give the proponents more suppport. By being outrageous, it makes the rest of the guys seem reasonable.

The english version will unfortunately be not so quick. Apropos, if you know of a publisher that might be suitable for that english version, then tell me and I'll pass it onto IvL.

And yes, I agree that Milka is also excellent in the Wikipedia talk pages. Must be a quick typist and thinker!

will314159

14th March 2006 - 02:05 PM

Hdeasy is also very loquacious but he has relatives that are polliticians so he comes by his diplomacy honestly.

You can sell anything using Amazon. They have programs for subcontractors. I have bought used biology books from the Amazon site but some of the books came from ordinary students. I don't know what the Amazon overhead is. The Lulu site you mentioned seemed good.

As far as the Mass code being a look up table due to if-else statements. It's easy enough to research with the Maxima interpreter. I've been breaking up the code, running a little of it at a time and seeing what it does. Of course, I'm having to learn Maxima at the same time. It comes with a tutorial and there are more on the Web.

Did I say how impressed I am with it? It just wouldn't do to be an Algebra teacher these days. Or a calculus instructor either. It would be pointless to assign rote homework if a kid had maxima access. I remember my days teaching Algebra, Ok kids today we are going to learn about mr. x, miss y, and baby z.

Take Care!

MMC

14th March 2006 - 02:33 PM

Alright, we now have both Maxima and C# code uploaded. The C code is on its way and hopefully spony will upload is Java source soon.

Ha ha Will314159 - you must be the most loquacious - unless it's Milka. I must download Maxima myself. Meanwhile, back at New Scientist, there have been a few comments on Heim - seems the US military/ Aerospace has along history of interst in his work - these links imply they may have lost the thread in the 1950's but htat was before the mass formula...

From the last link: theory predicts that if an electromagnetic ring spins fast enough, a decrease in inertial mass will occur

I don't think, it's so true. The magnetic field can be considered as some form of inertial motion of vacuum (the Aether, to be more specific, as it influences the massive particle, too). It gives a vacuum inertia by the simmilar way, as the fluid flow gives some inertia for example the vortex ring. It means, in strong magnetic field the vacuum will obtain the inertial properties of the mass, resulting in dragging effect of Aether as the result of the spininig of Earth in magnetic field of it (see Gravity Probe B results, for instance). Such effects manifests itself by the dramatic way in magnetars, where the magnetic field is so strong, it can form a massive layers formed by the mixture of plasma with the magnetic field flux lines, which are undergoing the quake and the other effects, thus having direct analogies in massive environment.

It means, the magnetic field gives the vacuum inertia which can be used as the source of reactive force without decreasing of the spaceship mass. Such force is directional and from the gravity spreading perspective it's a normal propulsion, no decreasing/shielding of gravity force should occur here - see the scheme of Heim's propulsion above.

Guest

14th March 2006 - 05:09 PM

As usual .... Zephir.... is disrupting another thread with his Aether

Zephir

14th March 2006 - 05:17 PM

QUOTE (Guest+Mar 14 2006, 08:09 PM)

is disrupting another thread with his Aether

The idea of Aether isn't mine. I don't know about better denomination of the both the vacuum and observable mass together - after all, here exist scientific priority in such denomination.

I'm proposing the explanation of some insights of Heim's theory from the common physic perspective, as the Heim's theory isn't just about dunch re-writing of Heim's formula into different programming languages.

You're just an useless anonymous spamer, instead.

MMC

14th March 2006 - 06:23 PM

QUOTE

Sleight of Heim28 January 2006 Roko Mijic Cambridge, UK

I was extremely interested to see New Scientist carrying an article about Heim theory, especially as it seemed to promise so many exciting technological possibilities (7 January, p 24). How amazing would it be if we could travel to the stars in the near future, based on a theory of quantum gravity that was lurking in the mind of one dedicated but reclusive physicist for all those years.

However, your article points out that no one actually understands Heim theory.

I'm starting to get to grips with what is being proposed. I'm filling in some of the blanks for myself, but he seems to be on the right track.

I'm trying to figure out how he intended to exploit the gravito-photon coupling. If I can fully understand the mechanism that he is proposing, then I would have a clearer idea of how it all fits together.

I also added this below to the talk page of Heim theory, I think it is time we got the classifications sorted out and made them consistant...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Sleight of Heim28 January 2006 Roko Mijic Cambridge, UK

I was extremely interested to see New Scientist carrying an article about Heim theory, especially as it seemed to promise so many exciting technological possibilities (7 January, p 24). How amazing would it be if we could travel to the stars in the near future, based on a theory of quantum gravity that was lurking in the mind of one dedicated but reclusive physicist for all those years.

However, your article points out that no one actually understands Heim theory.

I'm starting to get to grips with what is being proposed. I'm filling in some of the blanks for myself, but he seems to be on the right track.

I'm trying to figure out how he intended to exploit the gravito-photon coupling. If I can fully understand the mechanism that he is proposing, then I would have a clearer idea of how it all fits together.

I also added this below to the talk page of Heim theory, I think it is time we got the classifications sorted out and made them consistant...

Re-classification Request

Heim Theory has been catagorised as 'Pseudoscience'. The form of calculus employed by Heim Theory has been catagorised as 'Fringe Science'.

I would request that in the interests of consistancy and in light of the current scientific debate that it has generated, that all material relating to 'Heim Theory' be catagorised under 'Fringe Science'.

'Fringe Science' would be the appropriate catagory for scientific material that is not mainstream, but still considered worthy of further scientific exploration. Most solid new theories would also fall under this catagory. -MMC 18:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How amazing would it be if we could travel to the stars in the near future, based on a theory of quantum gravity that was lurking in the mind of one dedicated but reclusive physicist for all those years.

Well, the Heim's thoery is always pretty controverse, considering for example this remark:

I imagine that testing the anti-gravity effect would require rather powerful equipment, at the limit of present technology, to lift a 150-tonne spacecraft. But I do not understand why the effect cannot be demonstrated by using weaker magnetic fields and a lighter rotating ring. I didn't read anything in your article about a minimum threshold field for the anti-gravity effect to occur, so why not try to lift just a few grams?

If the Heim's propulsion should have some practical uses, I don't understand, why nobody of Heim's theory proponents didn't attempt in some practical demonstration of such effect. It looks a quite simple.

How the proposed arrangement of Heim's propulsion is related to the Podkletnov's antigravity experiments?

will314159

14th March 2006 - 07:00 PM

i thought Zephir's remarks were on point and appropriate and his illurstrations as usual were superb.

The word FRINGE has poor connotations. It's usually used with lunatic. Such as he belongs to the "fringe and lunatic faction." There has to be a better word to describe "non-mainstream.:

how about NON-MAINSTREAM?"

Take Care!

EditI see that the wikipedia "metron" article got deleted.bastardsHmmm.A little retalliation is in order, perhaps a "protosimplex" articlle!

MMC

14th March 2006 - 08:04 PM

QUOTE

The word FRINGE has poor connotations. It's usually used with lunatic. Such as he belongs to the "fringe and lunatic faction." There has to be a better word to describe "non-mainstream.:

I get your point, however, it is only a theory and right now it is classed as pseudoscience. I don't agree with the current classification, as I understand the abstract nautre of heim's work and how that operates as a basic framework.

Even if it does not predict the correct mass values and the anti-gravity turns out to be nonsense, the approach itself is correct. The theory can be amended even if these predictions are eliminated.

The term 'Fringe Science' allows a consistant catagorisation of material that could well be within the realms of possiblity. It also gives a clear indication that the material is not considered outright nonsense, but something that's worthy of further scientific exploration.

In general, anything that's worthy of Pascal's Wager...

Zephir

14th March 2006 - 09:33 PM

QUOTE (MMC+Mar 14 2006, 11:04 PM)

...the approach itself is correct...

The whole true is, the approach is the most problematic part of Heim's theory, as nearly nobody understands it from common physic perspective by my opinion. I was already proud, I can explain the basic insights of both the superstring/M-theories, both the LQG and twistor theories (i.e. all mainstream field theories on the market) rather easily an consistently using my Aether Wave Theory (AWT) - but the introducing points of Heim's theory are remaining a mystery for me, like for others. It's obvious, the Heim's theory has not very much to do with the simple recursive wave solution, which I've proposed as the basic paradigm of observable Universe. Instead of this, it's the most complicated theory, which I've met until now not just from mathematic point of view. The introducing postulates of LQG and superstring theory (the torsion deformation of vacuum and strings) are rather trivial with compare these of Heim's theory,

This theory looks like coming from the other planet for me ("who ordered that?"). But I believe, the orientation to recursive tensor solution with selector calculus formalism describes the behavior of the similar topology of torsion deformations of massive vacuum in fact, like the most of other mainstream theories, the geometrodynamic and twistor theories in particular. It's obvious, the math decription itself isn't sufficient for understanding and acceptation of the physical theory concept by the same way, as just qualitative description of it.

But it seems, the number of dimensions involved by Heim's theory converges gradually to the number of dimensions, proposed by the M-theory and AWT (i.e. 12 D) during time. The insights of minimal and maximal curvature of space time, which Dr. Heim postulates are in deep conformance with my ideas of recursive Universe evolution, which I've derived from Lagrangian dependence of space time compactification independently. The metrons concept reminds the AWT's collapsed space time waves from the previous generation of Universe, the principle of gravitation equation correction proposed by Dr. Heim corresponds to the one of the Yilmaz's theory, the concepts of gravitoelectromagnetism and gravitophotons aren't very new in theoretical physic, too.

It means, a lot of connections to the existing theories exist here, so we should believe to Heim's theory formalism, despite the famous success of the Heim's mass formula.

jal

14th March 2006 - 10:20 PM

Zephir...you said

QUOTE

remaining a mystery for me

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

remaining a mystery for me

This theory looks like coming from the other planet for me ("who ordered that?").

It has nothing to do with your theory of torsion deformations of massive vacuum (Aether Wave Theory).Heim's theory

QUOTE

consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta .

I will continue in your thread. jal

will314159

15th March 2006 - 12:40 AM

MMC

deeply appreciate your thoughts and hard workseriously what is wrong with the neutral and non-prejudicial classification ofnon-mainstream?

MMC

15th March 2006 - 12:45 AM

QUOTE

The whole true is, the approach is the most problematic part of Heim's theory, as nearly nobody understands it from common physic perspective by my opinion.

Common physics makes models based upon information from interactions at the quantum level. Generally, this information is presented from the perspective of an external observer and in Euclidean geometry.

Heim differs from this approach. He asks himself, what is required to make a universe function?

He then reduces these basic requirements into managable abstract representations, that can be computed mathematically. The result is a 'quasi-physical co-ordinate system' that shows you the universe from the point of view of a particle and its related information transfers.

This quasi-physical representation is almost algebraic in nature, in that, the latest known results can be plugged into the framework, allowing Heim to try to 'connect-the-dots' mathematically. Over time, you can see how the 'fuzzy' parts would be replaced by hard information and thus, solid formulas obtained.

Heim's style is more like cartography, it attempts to map space, rather than speculate about it...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The whole true is, the approach is the most problematic part of Heim's theory, as nearly nobody understands it from common physic perspective by my opinion.

Common physics makes models based upon information from interactions at the quantum level. Generally, this information is presented from the perspective of an external observer and in Euclidean geometry.

Heim differs from this approach. He asks himself, what is required to make a universe function?

He then reduces these basic requirements into managable abstract representations, that can be computed mathematically. The result is a 'quasi-physical co-ordinate system' that shows you the universe from the point of view of a particle and its related information transfers.

This quasi-physical representation is almost algebraic in nature, in that, the latest known results can be plugged into the framework, allowing Heim to try to 'connect-the-dots' mathematically. Over time, you can see how the 'fuzzy' parts would be replaced by hard information and thus, solid formulas obtained.

Heim's style is more like cartography, it attempts to map space, rather than speculate about it...

seriously what is wrong with the neutral and non-prejudicial classification ofnon-mainstream?

Anything can be labeled 'non-mainstream'. It is a very bland and off-putting term...it sounds off-beat...

I suppose 'Fringe Science' sounds a little more cutting edge. Which is exactly what it would be, if we could confirm the selected results and which it is, particulary for its style.

Zephir

15th March 2006 - 12:56 AM

QUOTE (MMC+Mar 15 2006, 03:45 AM)

He then reduces these basic requirements into manageable abstract representations, that can be computed mathematically...

Well, this is just a approach, which I'm missing in the Heim's theory.

Where I can found a list of such explicit postulates (i.e. "basic requirements") of the Heim's theory?

1) The field can be described by the wave equation of N-dimensional massive elastic string.2) The energy density of solution in each moment corresponds the mass density of string.

The rest is just a stupid math. The same is valid at the case of the quantum/relativity theories, just the number of postulates is higher.

jal

15th March 2006 - 01:13 AM

Zephir...For now.... you can read my last posting in your thread.jal

hdeasy

15th March 2006 - 07:57 AM

QUOTE (MMC+Mar 15 2006, 12:45 AM)

I suppose 'Fringe Science' sounds a little more cutting edge. Which is exactly what it would be, if we could confirm the selected results and which it is, particulary for its style.

I see that Heiim Theory is now categorised as ' Protoscience' - this is an excellent compromise, I think. 'Fringe' does have extremely derrogatory connotations, implying ' looney' or ' wacky' . It is just about acceptable for Selector Calculus as that is not the main page, but for the main theory page protoscience it should stay.

Take Care!Edit more29.2.2 The tensors of curved space The main purpose of the ctensor package is to compute the tensors of curved space(time), most notably the tensors used in general relativity. When a metric base is used, ctensor can compute the following tensors:

Function: christof (dis) A function in the ctensor (component tensor) package. It computes the Christoffel symbols of both kinds. The argument dis determines which results are to be immediately displayed. The Christoffel symbols of the first and second kinds are stored in the arrays lcs[i,j,k] and mcs[i,j,k] respectively and defined to be symmetric in the first two indices. If the argument to christof is lcs or mcs then the unique non-zero values of lcs[i,j,k] or mcs[i,j,k], respectively, will be displayed. If the argument is all then the unique non-zero values of lcs[i,j,k] and mcs[i,j,k] will be displayed. If the argument is false then the display of the elements will not occur. The array elements mcs[i,j,k] are defined in such a manner that the final index is contravariant.

Function: ricci (dis) A function in the ctensor (component tensor) package. ricci computes the covariant (symmetric) components ric[i,j] of the Ricci tensor. If the argument dis is true, then the non-zero components are displayed.

Function: uricci (dis) This function first computes the covariant components ric[i,j] of the Ricci tensor. Then the mixed Ricci tensor is computed using the contravariant metric tensor. If the value of the argument dis is true, then these mixed components, uric[i,j] (the index i is covariant and the index j is contravariant), will be displayed directly. Otherwise, ricci(false) will simply compute the entries of the array uric[i,j] without displaying the results.

Function: scurvature () Returns the scalar curvature (obtained by contracting the Ricci tensor) of the Riemannian manifold with the given metric.

Function: einstein (dis) A function in the ctensor (component tensor) package. einstein computes the mixed Einstein tensor after the Christoffel symbols and Ricci tensor have been obtained (with the functions christof and ricci). If the argument dis is true, then the non-zero values of the mixed Einstein tensor ein[i,j] will be displayed where j is the contravariant index. The variable rateinstein will cause the rational simplification on these components. If ratfac is true then the components will also be factored.

Function: leinstein (dis) Covariant Einstein-tensor. leinstein stores the values of the covariant Einstein tensor in the array lein. The covariant Einstein-tensor is computed from the mixed Einstein tensor ein by multiplying it with the metric tensor. If the argument dis is true, then the non-zero values of the covariant Einstein tensor are displayed.

Function: riemann (dis) A function in the ctensor (component tensor) package. riemann computes the Riemann curvature tensor from the given metric and the corresponding Christoffel symbols. The following index conventions are used: l _l _l _l _m _l _m R[i,j,k,l] = R = | - | + | | - | | ijk ij,k ik,j mk ij mj ik This notation is consistent with the notation used by the itensor package and its icurvature function. If the optional argument dis is true, the non-zero components riem[i,j,k,l] will be displayed. As with the Einstein tensor, various switches set by the user control the simplification of the components of the Riemann tensor. If ratriemann is true, then rational simplification will be done. If ratfac is true then each of the components will also be factored. If the variable cframe_flag is false, the Riemann tensor is computed directly from the Christoffel-symbols. If cframe_flag is false, the covariant Riemann-tensor is computed first from the frame field coefficients.

Function: lriemann (dis) Covariant Riemann-tensor (lriem[]). Computes the covariant Riemann-tensor as the array lriem. If the argument dis is true, unique nonzero values are displayed. If the variable cframe_flag is true, the covariant Riemann tensor is computed directly from the frame field coefficients. Otherwise, the (3,1) Riemann tensor is computed first. For information on index ordering, see riemann.

Function: uriemann (dis) Computes the contravariant components of the Riemann curvature tensor as array elements uriem[i,j,k,l]. These are displayed if dis is true.

Function: rinvariant () Forms the Kretchmann-invariant (kinvariant) obtained by contracting the tensors lriem[i,j,k,l]*uriem[i,j,k,l]. This object is not automatically simplified since it can be very large.

Function: weyl (dis) Computes the Weyl conformal tensor. If the argument dis is true, the non-zero components weyl[i,j,k,l] will be displayed to the user. Otherwise, these components will simply be computed and stored. If the switch ratweyl is set to true, then the components will be rationally simplified; if ratfac is true then the results will be factored as well.

Olaf

15th March 2006 - 02:51 PM

New enhanced version of Heim 1982 excel worksheet and Pascal version on-line

I proudly present my pascal version of the DESY 1982 mass formula.Results of both version are exciting (posting will follow)!

2006-03-11 v0.53 Removed numerical correction (rounding up when Ki>x.99) because this produced an error in neutron (N=4).This is in accordance with [2]. The note in [1] regarding wrong values in some cases might been an effect of too less digits used in a historic programming language.

For Will314159, you can integrate Maxima with TexMacs and you will have results with better appearance (similar to LaTex).

Anyway, I still have problems with Heim theory, lepton tau is not calculated. The N=2 resonance for lepton mu has a mass of 1783 Mev. The actual value for tau is around 1777 Mev.

Bye.

MMC

15th March 2006 - 04:23 PM

QUOTE

I see that Heiim Theory is now categorised as ' Protoscience' - this is an excellent compromise, I think. 'Fringe' does have extremely derrogatory connotations, implying ' looney' or ' wacky' . It is just about acceptable for Selector Calculus as that is not the main page, but for the main theory page protoscience it should stay.

I'm in agreement on that, I read the definition for protoscience:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I see that Heiim Theory is now categorised as ' Protoscience' - this is an excellent compromise, I think. 'Fringe' does have extremely derrogatory connotations, implying ' looney' or ' wacky' . It is just about acceptable for Selector Calculus as that is not the main page, but for the main theory page protoscience it should stay.

I'm in agreement on that, I read the definition for protoscience:

Category:Protoscience

In the philosophy of science, a protoscience is an 'area of science' which is in its formulative or speculative stages, and may in the future become established as a science, or may otherwise discarded as a falsifiable claim.

That's perfect.

Most people have heard the 'anti-gravity' claims being made in association with Heim theory and I feel that this is putting people off. The truth is, there is NO anti-gravity claim, but an effect that can produce a SIMILAR event.

From what I can see at the moment, it is the coupling that is the key. The trick would appear to be either to disrupt the coupling or absorb the energy. This would introduce an imbalance of forces resulting in motion.

That's pure genius...and worth a shot at least.

QUOTE

To MMC:Could you please add me to the list of the developers? My sourceforge name is olafp.

You now have developer access, upload you source when you are able...

araven,

Upload your source to upload.sourceforge.net (FTP) as a zip file and I'll publish it as a file release. I'll grab it from there and add it to CVS.

Could the rest of the developers also upload a zip version of their source and I'll make the files available from the project site.

rshoemake

15th March 2006 - 04:34 PM

Hey MMC,

I wouldn't mind being added as well. My name is the same as on here.

millka

15th March 2006 - 05:09 PM

QUOTE (Olaf+Mar 15 2006, 02:51 PM)

...Removed numerical correction (rounding up when Ki>x.99) because this produced an error in neutron (N=4).This is in accordance with [2]. The note in [1] regarding wrong values in some cases might been an effect of too less digits used in a historic programming language....

That is most likely OK. Around 1980, ancient PC's usually didnt had a FPU (floating point unit). Floating point number calculations were implemented in software then. The numerical quality of these implementations wasnt very good.

I withstand the urge to tell heartbraking stories about how we had to carry the bits uphill barefoot thru the snow ..

Nowadays, floating point calculations usually are implemented according to IEEE 754 ( http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/ ) which avoids many (but not all pitfalls) of floating point numbers. There are still problems because of the limited amount of memory - usually 32, 64 or 80 bit per variable.

So, back then, floating point calculations were really bad, while today they are just bad ..

I remember that old lame joke about floating point numbers:

Between any two consequtive floating point numbers, there is still an infinite set of real numbers missing ..

- - -

Two questions:

Metron Shape: If i got everything right, the metrons are basically 2D objects, which get 'folded' to form particles. However flat metrons are empty spacetime. We know their area (tau), but what about the shape ? Are the empty spacetime flat metrons circles/disks or squares/tiles or what ? Does HT say anything precise about that ?

Or is that "left to the reader as an exercise" ..

Neutral electron: In the MBB 1976 lecture, Heim himself says that the "neutral electron" is the lower border of all ponderable masses and that it does not have to exist at all - see the discussion page of HT on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heim_the...eutral_electron ). Did Heim or Droescher or anyone else later demand, that the neutral electron actually has to exist ? Or does HT just allow, but not demand its existence ?

Zephir

15th March 2006 - 06:18 PM

QUOTE (millka+Mar 15 2006, 08:09 PM)

...If i got everything right, the metrons are basically 2D objects...

If it's true, then it resembles the current (mem)brane vacuum model of M-theory, based on phase interface energy spreading in multidimensional foam.

(How do I have to format code so that browsers do not break the lines here?)

1. The error in the computation of strangeness of xi is absent here that happend in the 1982 DESY code. I used the equations given in the 1982 paper.

2.There is an interesting variance in omicrons, when using Pascal. I don't know whether Pascal has more accuracy because of 20 digits used. At this point we need further investigation with a mathematical orientated programming language.

3.Resonance limits calculated in excel and pascal are 100% identical (besides - of course - the omicrons mentioned).Interesting enough these limits are in many cases significantly smaller than the limits Burkhard Heim has published in "Elementary structures", vol 2.This may be a result of number types used.You find the limits in the excel worksheet and in the file gprogout.dat. The Pascal version calculates resonances up to N=180.

4. As noted before I skipped the special truncation rule for values >x.99This rule was mentioned in the 1982 paper and in "Elementary structures", vol 2.

MMC

15th March 2006 - 06:29 PM

The first file release of the C implementation is now available as a file download from the Heim Theory project at SourceForge.

I'm just translating some of my graphics. This one could be interesting here.

neutrino

17th March 2006 - 01:40 AM

Hi Olaf,

Thanks for the image, but it's size makes it difficult toread. Can you post the full size version on your site?

Thanks!

UncleMatt

17th March 2006 - 01:44 AM

If you save the file to your pc and then view it, it is easily readable.

will314159

17th March 2006 - 01:53 AM

neutrino

like uncle matt said, you can open it las a Gif file, but i prefer to use the opera browser. With opera, you can quickly scale from 100% to 1000%.

You can also have multiple pages open, and alos multiple windows with multiple pages. It easy to have pages read to you with voice.

It is a great browser for the visually impaired. And pop up annihailation is super

download at www.opera.com

Take Care!

Serenity

18th March 2006 - 01:11 AM

Hi again !

I've read this from heim-theory.com :

QUOTE

As far as we aware there are no plans to translate Heim's books. If ever there were interest in this a revision of the original text would be required. There is an English language translation of his paper, however, with two further overview papers in English written by members of the group:

* Elementary Structures of Matter, * Heim's Theory of Elementary Particles, * The Physics of Burkhard Heim and its Application to Space Propulsion.

They were hosted on our site until 2003. If there is a renewed interest, we will re-release these papers -but only after a revision of the content.

Has anyone any of these files ?

(I don't understand why they want to wait before translating Heim's work. Heim's work need more work (to understand and clarify things, to debug or upgrade formulas...), so what's the use of preventing non-german speakers to contribute ?...)

MMC

18th March 2006 - 06:06 PM

QUOTE

I believe you are forgettng the original Mathematica code from which Maxima was derived.

jreed has just joined the developers, so his Mathematica version will be available soon.

(I don't understand why they want to wait before translating Heim's work. Heim's work need more work (to understand and clarify things, to debug or upgrade formulas...), so what's the use of preventing non-german speakers to contribute ?...)

Not many people understand Heim's approach and given the changing nature of condensed matter physics, the theory needs updated. We already have a situation were a lot of people are confused by Heim's work and translating those publications would only add to the confusion.

I can also see that Heim's 'coupling' descriptions are not just limited to mass, but effect almost every quantum bound state.

The possibilities are endless and its even hinting at a new method of electricity generation...I don't know how sound this aspect is, however, once I get all the various factors straight in my head, I should know more.

I don't think field force propulsion is too far off...10-20 years perhaps.

metronhead

18th March 2006 - 09:07 PM

Hi Serenity-

QUOTE

Has anyone any of these files ?

(I don't understand why they want to wait before translating Heim's work. Heim's work need more work (to understand and clarify things, to debug or upgrade formulas...), so what's the use of preventing non-german speakers to contribute ?...)

I have been working on the Von Ludwiger paper: D Zur Herleitung der Heimschen Massenformel (81 Pages), Version vom 9.10.2003, which was available on the website:

I also bought the books- Resch Verlag will send them if you e-mail and ask They are very dense and formidable, especially for someone who is not a native German speaker- and they are not cheap. The four books cost me almost 300 Euros.

On the Von Ludwiger paper, I have been cutting and pasting into the Google language translator from Adobe Acrobat and MS word- so far seems to be working pretty good, with lots of cleanup and a good German/English dictionary. I intend to start on the Heim books eventually, scanning them in, submitting them to the Google language tools, and so on, if no English translations appear in the meantime.

It may take months just to do the Von Ludwiger paper, for my own use- the books would take years. Eventually, I hope to submit the Von Ludwiger translation to Von Ludwiger, for his modification and approval, for him to publish if he wants. Some of the Heim group members might be interested in doing final corrections, too.

'o--' is exchanged with "Ω-" in Olaf's list. Perhaps error in 1982 Fortran.

-- Freimuth

Guest_MMC

19th March 2006 - 06:34 AM

I've been looking at Heim's theory a little more. He is trying to replace our notion of forces and draw our attention to the principle of Equilibrium. Equilibrium of kinetic energy in a quantum system results in a motionless state.

Einstein stated that acceleration and gravity were the same thing...

By absorbing the force carrier, or breaking the coupling, a loss of equilibrium occurs, resulting in acceleration. If we now look at Higgs we can see that the field force is always 1, that is, its always present. What's interesting to note is that there is field force present from which to absorb.

So, far from being a off-the-wall idea, it is matching very closely with established theory at this point.

jal

19th March 2006 - 04:20 PM

Guest_MMC...

QUOTE

....He is trying to replace our notion of forces and draw our attention to the principle of Equilibrium.. ...

" In relativity, the equivalence principle is applied to several related concepts dealing with gravitation and the uniformity of physical measurements in different frames of reference. They are related to the Copernican idea that the laws of physics should be the same everywhere in the universe, to the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and also to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference. "

Ultimately the conclusion is made that the m in F=ma is the same m as in F=Gmm/r*r

that is inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent.

Take Care!

jal

19th March 2006 - 04:54 PM

Hi!will314159... Thank youI guess that we will have to wait to see how Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory handles energy tranfer from one dimension to the next.Any idea on the time frame for publishing?Jal

hdeasy

20th March 2006 - 08:07 AM

Hi Jal,

Publishing: the Heim theory group say they are working on one or two review papers they hope to publish this year. Droscher and Hauser are also busy with some new publicaiton, hopefully this year.

Take care,Hdeasy

hdeasy

21st March 2006 - 08:32 AM

Some time ago Good_elf and one or two others were concerned that there was no Higgs Boson in Heim -Droscher theory. But now Droscher, with Hauser, has found some indication that it might me present after all. Its mass was calculated using two different methods with essentially the same result. So this preliminary work indicates that its mass should be about twice the Z0 boson. A gravitophotonpair should be present in the corresponding Feynman diagram. This preliminary mass range involved is thus 182.7 +- 0.6 GeV.

jreed

21st March 2006 - 02:02 PM

QUOTE (hdeasy+Mar 21 2006, 08:32 AM)

Some time ago Good_elf and one or two others were concerned that there was no Higgs Boson in Heim -Droscher theory. .

Speaking of missing particles, where is the tau lepton? I don't see it anywhere and it's a well confirmed particle. The mass should be about twice that of a proton and the lifetime is short, about 10^-13 sec.

John Reed

jal

21st March 2006 - 03:41 PM

Hi!This thread has generated not only interest but questions. As we learn more about the presentation we realize that we want to know the answer to deeper questions. I am suspicious of answers that are in the format of, " You were looking for ?? Oh! let me see. Yep! there it is." (re. Higgs Boson) "What else do you want? I got it all." Answers to concerns/questions of this natures makes me want to say, " Show me. Prove it."The tau lepton has been raised by jreed and needs to be addressed.The flow of energy being always downhill has to be addressed. When energy goes from 2d to 3d it's like water falling off a cliff. The dissipated energy can be gathered up into a mountain of matter (potential energy) into sufficient quantities to make a mountain big enough to reach up the cliff to the level of 2d (Black Holes). Therefore, there can be be echos/interactions with the energy in the 2d configurations. My statements on the flow of energy are only following the laws of physics as we know them. How does the Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory handle energy flow? " Show me. Prove it."In case anyone else is smug about their theory just remember. " You cannot get an echo when facing the ocean. You will only get an echo when you turn around and face the cliff." jal edit: If you want to debate the flow of energy don't do it here. Do it in my thread, (click here)

hdeasy

21st March 2006 - 04:34 PM

Hi Jal & Jreed,

On Tau - i thought we had that one out before - isn't it a resonance of another particlein Heim's scheme? How do I search this thread? or maybe I have it in my records - will consult and return to the topic later. As for energy flux - that gets us onto dynamics, which is one of the items on the ' to-do' list for HEim theory. The 6-D theory is rather static - enough for hte masses. 8-D puts in the interactions to some extent, but it remains to do the full job. As Prof. Hauser says in his rebuttal of Bruhn's criticisms, the to-do list is

(i) Construct Langrangians for all physical interactions from first principles using thecorresponding hermetry forms,(ii) Associate symmetry groups to respective hermetry form,(iii) Devising experiments to physically realize sieve operators,(iv) Devising an experiment to measure the Heim-Lorentz force, i.e., the conversionof the elctromagnetic field into a gravitational field to prove the existence of thegravitophoton particle,(v) Calculating coupling constants,(vi) Providing a derivation for the mass spectrum of elementary particles,

This has lots of physics refresher stuff for some of us and new material for those who didnt major in physics. Study this and you can probably understand this stuff better.

Guest_will314159

22nd March 2006 - 06:38 PM

Thanks rshoe

I had forgotten about the MIT open universitythe general relativity downloads are a hoot

Take Care!

Olaf

22nd March 2006 - 08:31 PM

Important bug fixes in Heim (1982) Gprog 0.62.pas

I have found three bugs with wrong or missing brackets. Now the results match those of excel version and those of the 1982 FORTRAN code.

Protosimplex updateNow there is an English version of the graphics available. In addition I changed the graphics in the examples pages also to English. That will make understanding easier. (Thank you Hugh for correcting!)

Because a projection only is possible toward a smaller number of dimensions , this latest projection from S2 must take place on a single coordinate, i.e. on time T1 (x4 ). That means in practice that quantum-mechanical events will be shifted minimally in time, whereby probabilities of physical interaction shift in each point in time.

from last lines at protosimplexI will give my arguement in support of this statement. at my thread, (click here)My model (spots) should be considered as a starting visual. Not the final version.jal

Haiko Lietz

23rd March 2006 - 07:11 AM

Hi everybody,Olaf Posdzech, who often met Burkhard Heim in the 90s, has put a version of the mass formula on the web: www.engon.de/protosimplex/new.htmHe has Excel and Pascal versions. I hope this will further boost your efforts.Best of luck, Haiko

On Tau - i thought we had that one out before - isn't it a resonance of another particlein Heim's scheme? ,

[QUOTE]

I went back and looked through all the posting previous to when I joined this group. The only one I found dealing with the tau lepton was posted by vilvi on Feb 8 asking basically the same question I asked. There were no follow-up replies that I could find. This is an important question I believe. Here's why: The tau was discovered in 1975. A new class of particles (heavy leptons) was begun because this was the first heavy lepton found. I assume 1975 was after Heim came up with most of his ideas. If Heim theory can predict this particle it would show that the theory has more in it than just what was known at the time it was invented. If Heim theory can't synthesize this particle it lends weight to the argument that the theory is only a well disguised value call up program.

jreed

hdeasy

23rd March 2006 - 05:10 PM

QUOTE (jreed+Mar 23 2006, 03:02 PM)

QUOTE (hdeasy+Mar 21 2006, 04:34 PM)

On Tau - i thought we had that one out before - isn't it a resonance of another particlein Heim's scheme? ,

[QUOTE]

I went back and looked through all the posting previous to when I joined this group. The only one I found dealing with the tau lepton was posted by vilvi on Feb 8 asking basically the same question I asked. There were no follow-up replies that I could find. This is an important question I believe. Here's why: The tau was discovered in 1975. A new class of particles (heavy leptons) was begun because this was the first heavy lepton found. I assume 1975 was after Heim came up with most of his ideas. If Heim theory can predict this particle it would show that the theory has more in it than just what was known at the time it was invented. If Heim theory can't synthesize this particle it lends weight to the argument that the theory is only a well disguised value call up program.

jreed

I found Von Ludwiger's anser on Tao from March 2nd:

The Tau is not with Heim an initial state, but an excited or resonance state of the My-minus-particle (N=0). The value for Tau (N=2) is with Heim (result minutes, Schulz, DESY, 1 May 1980:) Mass Tau = 1783,3926 MeV/c². This value lies thus in the measuring range. Greeting Illobrand more v.Ludwiger

Good Elf

24th March 2006 - 12:28 AM

Hi Hdeasy, spony, MMC et al,

QUOTE (hdeasy Posted: Mar 21 2006+ 08:32 AM)

Some time ago Good_elf and one or two others were concerned that there was no Higgs Boson in Heim -Droscher theory. But now Droscher, with Hauser, has found some indication that it might be present after all. Its mass was calculated using two different methods with essentially the same result. So this preliminary work indicates that its mass should be about twice the Z0 boson. A gravitophoton pair should be present in the corresponding Feynman diagram. This preliminary mass range involved is thus 182.7 +- 0.6 GeV.

This is excellent news. Could you publish the theoretical Feynman Diagram(s) for this process please? I realize that this is a difficult question but it is an interesting development. If Heim's Theory has predicted the mass of the Higgs Particle it will mean that his theory will become the most important development of all. If it does not predict the right mass value then that will be a problem but not an insurmountable one. If the Higgs Particle does not exist for some reason... Heim's theory may point to a flaw in the methodology. Now we need to see that the Higgs particle "pops up in the soup" at CERN (14 TeV, 2007). Whatever happens we are going to learn something here.

I have been watching with great admiration of the work being done by spony, MMC and a lot of others. You are all a part of a great adventure.

Cheers

Zephir

24th March 2006 - 12:57 AM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 24 2006, 03:28 AM)

You are all a part of a great adventure.

I'm sure, we are....

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.